Food Formulas

            Last week, we watched Food Inc. in class. I knew it would be about the truth behind the food industry, but I really wasn’t prepared to see the horrors of it for myself. Halfway into the movie, it started to look really familiar, and I realized I had seen the movie before. Maybe my horrified reaction at some of the things I witnessed in the movie suppressed the memories of it, but overall, I still learned a lot the second time around.

            My biggest impression after watching Food Inc. is that food is disgusting and we should just stop eating all together. Of course, that’s not a very probable option, so my next impression is that something needs to change. They used a lot of pathos in the movie to appeal to the viewer’s emotions, and it works. With all of the overview shots of supermarket aisles, we as viewers can relate to the situation, even without knowing the truth behind it. But after watching the film, we no longer want to even step into the supermarket and buy the food that was once loved wholeheartedly. I don’t think Food Inc. will change anybody’s life dramatically, but it could make them be slightly more cautious about what they eat. After all, how can we escape this? Literally everything we buy are either raised in a disgusting environment or dosed into chemicals. The healthiest option may be to just grow vegetables ourselves, but by then, the film would have made the viewer suspicious about everything around them. Maybe the fertilizer used to grow vegetables is packed with chemicals to make the plants grow at extraordinary rates. There really doesn’t seem to be a way out of this. I do think this movie was very informative and effective. It forces you to think about the world around us, even the things that we choose not to think about. We live up to the quote “out of sight, out of mind,” but this movie really makes you wonder what else the big businesses are hiding from us.

            My food formula would probably be “eat, drink and be merry.” Honestly, I don’t think we have any more hope for improving the way we eat, especially with all the secrets of the food industry and conflicting theories. We might as well just embrace it. Eat whatever you want, but know your limits. Drink lots of water, because that may be the least contaminated product of all. Be merry, make sure every little thing you do ensures your happiness. That’s what my food formula would be.

Response to Eric Schlosser's "What We Eat"

In Eric Schlosser’s “What We Eat”, he argues that fast food has been incorporated into American society, through layers and layers of the industry. It has quickly become part of the American lifestyle, something everyone living anywhere recognizes. The sad truth is, we can’t even imagine life without it.

                Schlosser uses several methods to support his argument. One of these methods is description. He uses second person perspective to describe the feeling of entering a fast food restaurant. “Pull open the glass door, feel the rush of cool air, walk in, get on line…and moments later, take hold of a plastic tray full of food wrapped in colored paper and cardboard.” This description uses vivid imagery and appeals to the reader’s sense to make them feel as if they too were experiencing the act of entering a fast food restaurant.

                Schlosser also uses definition in his essay. The word “uniformity” is defined as “the key to a successful franchise, according to many texts on the subject…Franchises and chain stores strive to offer exactly the same product or service at numerous locations. Customers are drawn to familiar brands by an instinct to avoid the unknown. A brand offers a feeling of reassurance when its products are always and everywhere the same.” This definition of “uniformity” is to show that customers always stick to what they know. Whether it’s in New York or in Alabama, customers everywhere will visit a fast food restaurant like McDonald’s because it’s familiar and comforting to them, especially if it’s on a trip outside of their comfort zone. This allows the fast food industry to thrive all over the world.

                Schlosser uses a couple of methods in his essay to support his argument. Combining them allows the reader to become fully involved and convinced that his argument is correct. They are enveloped by these methods and make them relatable and easy for the reader to understand.

Eric Schlosser’s writing style is very interesting. It is written in an engaging manner, especially since it is on a subject that almost everybody can relate to. It makes the reader wonder how they too might be affected by the conformities of the fast food industry. I agree that it has pretty much taken over the American society. Living in New York City, I constantly see a McDonald’s or some other well-known fast food chain within a few blocks of each other. I feel that if Americans would stop relying on McDonald’s to get them through their life, America would be a much healthier nation.

Compare and Contrast: I'm Happy with an Arranged Marriage

Comparing and contrasting is the way we separate two ideas. We use it to differentiate them, and weigh their pros and cons to see which side they would rather take. It can be either one, neither one, or both. This especially helps if we are stuck between two things and we don’t know which one to go with.

In Gitangeli Sapra’s “I’m Happy with an Arranged Marriage,” Sapra weighs the pros and cons of an arranged marriage. She provides the reader with some information about arranged marriages, before they can form a judgment themselves. She states that “40% of ‘marriages made for love’ still end in divorce. By contrast, the rate of break-ups of arranged marriages in the Asian community is far lower.” Sapra is arguing that arranged marriages really aren’t that bad, despite the commonly attributed horrors that everybody seems to know. She says that “arranged unions are based on mutual interests and similar levels of education rather physical attraction.” While she argues that arranged marriages can actually be good things, she also addresses the fact that forced marriages still occur, making her argument more credible. However, she still abides by her statement that arranged marriages can be a good thing despite what Westerners may think.

Personally, I agree with Gitangeli Sapra in her argument. I don’t think that arranged marriages are really as bad as we credit them to be. Sure, it’s possible that two people that absolutely hate each other can wind up married. But, arranged marriages still come with a choice. If you meet that person and you decide you don’t like them, you don’t need to marry them, just move on to the next lucky person. Arranged marriages are usually more based on similarities, financial needs, and common interests. It’s like having a friend, except you’re married to them. Everything you might need, they will have. If you feel like having going skydiving and your partner also enjoys skydiving, there’s no question there about whether or not you should go skydiving, because it’s a common interest. In fact, arranged marriages kind of remind me of speed dating or match.com. Really, it’s just finding a person you’re compatible with and making it official, except in arranged marriages, there are a lot of people who love you trying to help you decide if you should marry this person. It’s really a great way to weed people out and make marriages last longer. 

Response to Stephanie Ericsson's The Ways We Lie

                In The Ways We Lie, Stephanie Ericsson categorizes some of the most common ways to lie. These include both the lies we tell other people and the ones we tell ourselves. The ones she includes are the white lie, facades, ignoring the plain facts, deflecting, omission, stereotypes and clichés, groupthink, out-and-out lies, dismissal and delusion. She asks the question of which lies are actually okay to tell. When is it okay to lie? Some of the lies we tell may seem harmless in the heat of the moment, but in the long term, will they be justified?

                I agree with the way Ericsson categorizes the lies we tell. She explains each lie very thoroughly and even includes a quote to back them up. If I could add in another lie, it would be plagiarism. Plagiarism is when a person takes someone else’s work out of context and calls it their own. This lie is very harmful to both the victim and the person claiming someone else’s work, because the victim loses their credibility to someone else, and the liar is depicted as, well, a liar. It really doesn’t get worse than that.

                Ericsson wrote this essay to tell all the ways we lie. Other than explaining each lie, she also talks about why we do it, and the thought process behind the decision that lying would be better than telling the truth. The purpose is to make the reader wonder about the world we live in. If so many people are lying, who’s to tell what a lie is and what is not anymore? What kind of world is it if all we do is lie? What if our world unto itself is a lie? Which lie should we believe next? These sorts of questions make the reader wonder when exactly it was that we have become so dependent on lying.

                Lying is a case by case situation. You need to consider the consequences of your lies. If your lie affects too many people, it can become extremely messy. If you’re the only one who suffers, it becomes okay to lie. If you’re the only one benefitting from it, it’s still okay. But it should never be the case that you benefit and others lose. That’s how I feel. 

Response to Robert Connors' How in the World Do You Get a Skunk Out of a Bottle?

Robert Connors’ How in the World Do You Get a Skunk Out of a Bottle? is about a university professor who saves a skunk from the terrible fate of having his head stuck in a glass jar for the rest of its life. He starts off slightly hesitant to whether he should save the skunk because of the possible consequences, but ultimately decides to forgo his rescue. He comes up with several ways to help the skunk, but they’re all too risky. The solution that he ends up using is just to hold the poor creature in one hand and the jar in the other, and twist and pull. After its release, it looks back, and the two of them share a moment of understanding.

The essay is titled as a question because Connors spends a majority of the narration coming up with a solution to the problem. He first goes through a process of convincing himself to approach the skunk, and when he finally decides to do it, he has to think about a good way to free the creature. At first, it seems unlikely for it to be released with the skunk getting scared and spraying him or it getting hurt. At the end, he does come up with a solution to the problem, and that’s why the title is in the form of a question.

I think the purpose of Connors’ essay is to entertain the readers. Very few people have ever encountered a problem like having to pull a skunk out of a bottle. The readers might find it quite interesting to see (from the point of view of the narrator) what it’s like to go through such a thing, so it makes them feel like they’ve had this kind of experience before too. Another purpose would be to persuade the readers from littering. Connors’ essay recalls the step by step thought process of freeing the skunk, and the reader gets a first-hand account of how difficult that is. He states that the skunk is suffering and suffocating, and he has to go through all sorts of possibly dangerous feats to rescue it. This is using pathos to play on the sympathy of the reader and persuade them not to litter anymore, because small animals can easily get trapped in its confines and die. 

Advertisement Influence: Olay

            In today’s manipulative, beauty-cautious world, money and appearances are everything. Businesses and corporations are always trying to appeal to the consumer, always trying to sell something. Seventeen is a popular magazine; teenager girls preach by it and the magazine knows it. Like most magazines, it features a number of advertisements, and in this issue, an Olay Complete advertisement is the first one seen. It’s two page spread is sure to be an eye-catching influence.

Pop singer Carrie Underwood is the face of this skincare corporation. Just featuring her boosts sales, because all teenager girls want to be like Carrie Underwood, and by subliminal advertising and false authority, they think they can be like her by using the product. The ad claims that “Olay Complete Daily UV blocks 92% of harmful UV rays.” Numbers like 92% also help sales because people are drawn to numbers, and numbers don’t lie. Since the number 92 is so close to 100, the product claims to be near guaranteed to work.

A Seventeen style professional named Ashley recalls a time when she received a scholarship to her dream school. She says that “[it] was one of the most exhilarating moments of [her] life.” The reader can’t help but feel happy for her and as a result, want this kind of thing to happen to themselves. It also says “check out my tips below for making your dreams a reality.” It taunts the reader into wanting to read and follow the tips. The ad makes it so that everyone can be just like Ashley and Carrie Underwood. Of course, Underwood has made her way to fame and fortune, but the ad incorporates their “tips”. Hard work pays off; using Olay doesn’t. This ad also gives the reader “a chance to win big” by offering tickets to see Carrie Underwood at the CMA Music Festival. These irrelevant prizes are like the Happy Meal toys from McDonald’s – a prize for doing something under influence. This ad is telling readers to buy their product so they can step into the shoes of someone they can only dream of being. These girls will change by using this Olay product, and their self-confidence will be boosted when they finally have something in common with Carrie Underwood. 

Response to Alissa Steiner's "Depression in College Students"

In “Depression in College Students”, Alissa Steiner talks about the battle of depression that college students often find themselves facing. Her thesis is “if counseling services on college campuses were better able to publicize and reach out to students, perhaps more students could get the help they need before it is too late.” She provides an annecdote about a student she once knew; Nima Shaterianl was a popular student who commited suicide. She also backs up her thesis with facts and statistics about depression and suicide. The science behind depression is explained in a way that allows the reader to undrestand how it works, as well as realize that seriousness behind the disease.  She also names triggering factors that lead to depression, such include school, work, extracurricular activities, family, etc. Steiner is also able to provide another real account of suicide, Elizabeth Shin, making the reality of the situation hit home. The readers are then able to relate to these accounts, because they too are college students, who could easily watch others, and well as themselves, go through the same things. A solution is offered, where Steiner informs the readera bout associations like CAPS that can help, and advices the readers what they can do for their own lives.

This essay really hit home, because I have a friend who battled depression for a long long time before she could finally win. She used to cut herself in her forearm; you can still see the scars when she wears short-sleeve t-shirts. It’s not something she hides, because she is so proud of herself for overcoming her depression. Unfortunately, not everybody is as strong as she is. It really is heartbreaking.

I thought that the essay was written very well, especially the way she formatted it into sections. There is one for recognizing depression, triggering factors, consequences, alternate solutions, and advice for the reader. It’s almost like a handbook or a guide, and it really defines each moment of depression and suicide, proving that even the earliest symptoms of depression are extremely important. I wouldn’t change anything about this essay.